Bruce Bartlett pushes back against the growing enthusiasm for the Fair Tax, the proposal to replace the income-tax system with a federal sales tax to eliminate the need for the IRS. Bartlett, a former Reagan and Bush 41 economist at Treasury, calls the proposal deceptive and more costly than anyone imagines:

Rep. John Linder (R., Ga.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) have introduced legislation (H.R. 25/S. 1025) to implement the FairTax. They assert that a rate of 23% would be sufficient to replace federal individual and corporate income taxes as well as payroll and estate taxes. Mr. Linder's Web site claims that U.S. gross domestic product will rise 10.5% the first year after enactment, exports will grow by 26%, and real investment spending will increase an astonishing 76%.

In reality, the FairTax rate is not 23%. Messrs. Linder and Chambliss get this figure by calculating the tax as if it were already incorporated into the price of goods and services. (This is known as the tax-inclusive rate.) Calculating it the conventional way that every other (This is called the tax-exclusive rate.)

The distinction is confusing, but think of it this way. If a product costs $1 at retail, the FairTax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, FairTax supporters say the rate is 23% rather than 30%.

This is only the beginning of the deceptions in the FairTax. Under the Linder-Chambliss bill, the federal government would have to pay taxes to itself on all of its purchases of goods and services. Thus if the Defense Department buys a tank that now costs $1 million, the manufacturer would have to add the FairTax and send it to the Treasury Department. The tank would then cost the federal government $300,000 more than it does today, but its tax collection will also be $300,000 higher.

Bartlett starts off with a bit of demagoguery that damages his credibility. His first argument against the Fair Tax has nothing to do with its costs or far-reaching implications. He opens by noting that the Church of Scientology supposedly devised it in the early 1990s as a way to get rid of the IRS. It's a smear tactic, of course. Even if it were true, and Bartlett provides no evidence that it is, it doesn't necessarily make the Fair Tax a bad idea. The concept of switching from an income tax to a consumption tax didn't originate in the 1990s.

However, the rest of the article is worth a read. When Bartlett stops smearing the advocates of the plan and gets down to the economics of the proposal, he does note some disturbing elements of the plan. First, the 23% figure is a sham, according to Bartlett; the tax rate would be 30%. Once that gets added to each dollar of a purchase, making it $1.30, the tax portion of $1.30 would be 23% of the total. This is not how most people think of sales tax, and it is very deceptive. Most Americans would not be willing to trade their current tax rate for a 30% rate on consumption.

Government purchases would apparently not be exempt from the federal taxes on any level. That means that governments will have to pay 30% more for their purchases, and that money will have to come from increased government spending. This is no joke, either -- the federal government is the largest consumer in the US, and the calculations on revenue neutrality are partly based on those purchases. If exempted, the revenue will fall far short of current receipts, which would require an even higher tax rate.

Furthermore, the proposal creates a situation in which the states would be responsible for collecting federal revenue. That would create the possibilities for all sorts of mischief, and some states might simply refuse to do so without compensation. The alternative would be to have two sets of tax boards with which retailers would have to contend, driving up their costs and duplicating government functions.

Even beyond that, taxing consumption may lead to some unwanted changes in the economy. For instance, newly-constructed housing would carry the 30% federal consumption tax. Would people opt to buy new housing, or would they look for resales in order to save the 30% excess costs? Would people buy new cars in the same numbers or look for "pre-owned" vehicles from private sellers? In fact, the resale markets would soar, while manufacturing would suffer from the lighter demand, thanks to punishing tax policies, especially in big-ticket items.

The flat tax may be a better route than the Fair Tax, which would require a Constitutional amendment to ensure that the government stops taxing income at the same time. Despite Bartlett's initial demagoguery, his more salient points are well taken.

UPDATE: Bruce Bartlett kindly replied to me by e-mail. Apparently, the connections between CATS and Scientology are no longer extant and ended shortly after the IRS gave Scientology the religious exemption it demanded. The connections were reported in a National Journal article published on March 18, 1995, and a 1997 World Magazine article. I'll try to track down the citations, but it seems a rather tangential issue at best, and Bartlett says he may write more about the Fair Tax in the near future.

TrackBack

» Fair Tax - At Least the Debate is On from frankhagan.com
The Fair Tax is a national sales tax that would replace all Federal income, payroll and excise taxes. Some of the debate rages over what I consider tangential issues such as eliminating the IRS. But now the real debate is starting. And there is one... [Read More]

Comments (85)

I live up here in New Hampshire. We do not have a Sales tax or an Income tax. There have been attempts by legislators to impose one or both, but they have always failed.

If this so called fair tax went into effect it would basically kill the economy IMHO. A thriving black market would start up almost overnight. (Think cigarettes in NYC)

I prefer the idea of a flat tax with one deduction. The first $50K, indexed to inflation would be deducted from your taxes.

If you make $51,000.00 you would only pay x% on $1000.00. There would be no mortgage deductions medical deductions, etc.

As to the 401K's and IRA's, that could be a deferred tax. The money deposited is not taxed, but can't be withdrawn until retirement without a significant penalty. Once you start taking it out, you are taxed at the standard rate minus the one deduction.

Just my thought.

Disclaimer:
I'm not an economist and I don't play one on TV. :)

PS
Another reason we tend to keep our state government in line is Article 10 of our Bill of Rights in our state constitution. It reads:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

There may well indeed be issues with the FairTax, but the 23%/30% demagoguery is frustrating. Our income taxes are based upon an inclusive rate, so why not the FairTax as well? If you make $100k in a year and pay $23k to the federal government in income tax, then you would have been considered to have paid 23% of your pay into federal taxes--not 30% of $77k, which is what you would have taken home. So the FairTax method of calculating taxes puts it on even par with how income tax is calculated.

I don't pretend to be an economist, but according to the FairTax book (not necessarily an unbiased source) we already pay an inflated figure for new purchases anyway, since corporate income taxes are simply passed along to consumers anyway. Eliminate corporate income taxes and the prices of goods would go down (and marked back up to a comparable price due to the FairTax.) Used/resale goods would in fact be cheaper by virtue of not having the FairTax put in, but then again used/resale goods are cheaper anyway, and yet people still buy stuff new.

In my perfect world, we would absolutely go to the FairTax (you could sunset it after 5 years if it doesn't work as advertised) but I'd be willing to look at a flat tax or other proposal. Anything would be better than the mess we have right now.

Also keep in mind that the FairTax would take a lot of power away from the federal government and K Street lobbyists, and they will work to keep this from happening through both fair and unfair means.

While I'm not arguing for a consumption based tax, I'd be more interested in listening to Bartlett's arguments against the concept of a consumption/sales tax, rather than have him single out a few particulars of a particular bill (Linder-Chambliss) to rail against.

For example, there is no requirement that a consumption based tax be imposed on home purchases, or to require the federal and state governments to pay tax on their purchases, or to include a subsidy to lower-income households. Likewise, there is no requirement that the states be 'deputized' to collect federal sales taxes; businesses can easily send the federal sales taxes they collect to the Treasury.

I would like to hear the proponents rebuttal to this attack and see them in a Q&A on this subject before I make any serious decision on its validity.
Every time a new approach to taxes comes up there is an immediate attack by some former bureaucrat from the Treasury Department or the IRS.
Politicians do not want any real tax relief for the average citizen because they fear revenue would drop drastically and they would be limited in their resources for earmarks and other self gratifying screw the citizens funds.
If there were any truly honest public servants left anymore, tax relief, immigration, fuel problems, welfare, and any other current disaster could be resolved in a matter of months. Never going to happen folks, we have too many dirt bags in public office.

This article was one of the most disappointing pieces I've read in the WSJ by a supposed conservative.

As you mentioned, starting off with a supposed link to Scientology was beyond the pale.

Then Mr. Bartlett made a lot of criticisms that make sense- in a static world.

The world of Fair Tax, or any consumption based tax, will be far different from the world we live in. To simply apply the numbers to existing consumption patterns is to grossly misrepresent the possibilities.

The Fair Tax will distort markets, but in good ways. The principal way will be to follow the always true economic law that, when you stop taxing something, you get more of it.

When investment is no longer taxed, there will be an unprecedented boom in investment. The driving force of higher living standards is productivity. More investment will mean more productivity and higher living standards, it is that simple.

If investment goods are taxed by the Fair Tax (I haven't read the book) then we will need 23-30% more investment to stay even, but I don't think we're looking at that small increase in investment, I'd venture that we could double or triple investment.

The fact that people will prefer black market resale goods to new goods is not a bug, it is a feature. First of all, there should be no black market, the tax should only apply on the first end user sale. The fact that people will prefer untaxed used goods should be a huge selling point to the environmentally minded.

There is no reason the states need to be charged with collecting the Feds money. We need to leave some jobs available for former IRS employees.

What Bartlett fails to mention is that that $100 item will drop by 22% due to the elimination of existing imbedded taxes. Add 23% to the new price of the item and the cost is about a break even. As Neal Boortz States in his book "The Fair Tax replaces the cost of the imbedded tax in our goods and services caused by our current tax code. We've run the calculations over and over and $23 out of $100 comes out to 23 percent, not 30 percent, every time".

As far as government purchases are concerned, as you can see from the above example, thay would comtinue to pay about what they pay today just like everyoue else. Incidently, where would the taxes the government pay go? That's right; right back to the government.

Ditto for new housing. New house prices would drop approximately 22% and therefore be competitive with resales.

As far as collecting the fair tax, I believe the suggestion is to offer the states a fee for collecting the federal taxes.

This article was one of the most disappointing pieces I've read in the WSJ by a supposed conservative.

As you mentioned, starting off with a supposed link to Scientology was beyond the pale.

Then Mr. Bartlett made a lot of criticisms that make sense- in a static world.

The world of Fair Tax, or any consumption based tax, will be far different from the world we live in. To simply apply the numbers to existing consumption patterns is to grossly misrepresent the possibilities.

The Fair Tax will distort markets, but in good ways. The principal way will be to follow the always true economic law that, when you stop taxing something, you get more of it.

When investment is no longer taxed, there will be an unprecedented boom in investment. The driving force of higher living standards is productivity. More investment will mean more productivity and higher living standards, it is that simple.

If investment goods are taxed by the Fair Tax (I haven't read the book) then we will need 23-30% more investment to stay even, but I don't think we're looking at that small increase in investment, I'd venture that we could double or triple investment.

The fact that people will prefer black market resale goods to new goods is not a bug, it is a feature. First of all, there should be no black market, the tax should only apply on the first end user sale. The fact that people will prefer untaxed used goods should be a huge selling point to the environmentally minded.

There is no reason the states need to be charged with collecting the Feds money. We need to leave some jobs available for former IRS employees.

Thanks so much for posting that section of the New Hampshire state constitution. Man, everything I hear about that state makes it sound better and better. If it wasn't infested with what Robert E. Lee referred to as "those people", I'd seriously consider moving up there!

It would force people who do not currently pay taxes to pay them. That's the entire point behind the "fair tax." It makes things fair.

It's not "fair" that some people pay no taxes ... in fact, millions receive a check from the government in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The reason that the Fair Tax will never be implemented is that its backers won't argue - cannot argue - that poor people should also pay their fair share. That's the effect of the Fair Tax ... it forces everyone to pay.

I personally believe that is quite a noble goal.

However, if your argument is so weak such that it cannot even be discussed out in the open ... then you've lost the battle already.

With some 70 million retirees (the nations largest, most powerful voting bloc next to illegal immigration) most of which are conditioned to believe the government is the solution to all problems and whose most important issues when it comes time to vote will be which party will take care of their health and financial well-being, our taxes will never be this low again.

Under GWB we had the Golden years however the golden years just turned to lead.

Post-modern society hasn't a clue about sacrificing today so that the future will be better for the children since post-modern society are perpetually in a state of childhood.

For the post-modern baby-boomer all the sacrifice neededis having to point out that their fathers served in WWII.

With all due respect your comments show that you are trying to state an opinion position that is clearly wrong as others above have pointed out.

My assumption is that you have not researched the fair tax and it's basis.

You fall into the same misconception the author did and add to the noise of wrong information that those who are unaware of how it works may only read your post and not the counter arguments in the comments.

How tax and revenue streams work are one of the most misunderstood areas of knowledge in this country.

For example Florida is a state that doesn't have a state income tax.

But it still has a fairly substantial yearly budget and it is funded.

Other alternative mechanisms are used , the money just doesn't come from thin air like magic.

Even with what the Fair Tax proposes there are still many other Federal and State revenue streams that will still exist that are now called fees and other specific taxes that are not addressed by the concept.

The system is so complex and used for political social engineering with many unintended side effects that it is just beyond the capability or interest of most to even try to understand the complexity.

It offsets for example buying ham and eggs or cereal for breakfast for everyone, but if you choose to go to a four star restaurant for Eggs Benedict than the excess cost is on you even though you got your SCC for that breakfast.

I see several people saying that if the fair tax is implemented, businesses will lower taxes (I've also heard other say that wages will be raised.). This makes an assumption that I would not be willing to bet on. Businesses are in business to make as large a profit as possible. This means that many will not lower their prices (at least as much as they are saving on taxes). Instead, they will increase their profits.
Also, many businesses will not increase their worker's wages as much as they would be saving on payroll taxes. The only places I could see doing this are non-profits and some government jobs.

That being said, with some corrections (let's not have the government tax itself), I would like to see it come about.
I personally like the fact that it would discourage people from automatically purchasing new items when a used one will work equally well for them.

So.... if the cost of a tank drops 22% and the FairTax adds 23% back to the cost, the government buys the tank at virtually the same price they are paying now plus 1%, then gets the 23% of the cost of the tank back in tax procedes, didn't the cost of the tank to the government DROP 22%???? Amazing that an Economist would use this as an arguement against a system that lowers the cost of EVERYTHING our government purchases by 22%.

I've not seen it commented anywhere, but I believe the Constitution (remember that thing?) prohibits Congress from taxing interstate commerce (see Section 9, item 5), and intrastate commerce is also beyond the legitimate reach of Congress. It is also noteworthy that the present income tax--IF practiced as it is written!--is quite favorable to most Americans. There is nothing "Fair" or legal about the Fair Tax. For the full story, I highly recommend a read of "Breaking the Code--the Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America" by Peter Hendrickson. It's available at Amazon.com, or at Hendrickson's website: www.losthorizons.com.

So.... if the cost of a tank drops 22% and the FairTax adds 23% back to the cost, the government buys the tank at virtually the same price they are paying now plus 1%, then gets the 23% of the cost of the tank back in tax procedes, didn't the cost of the tank to the government DROP 22%???? Amazing that an Economist would use this as an arguement against a system that lowers the cost of EVERYTHING our government purchases by 22%. The Federal Government makes out far better than we lowly consumers once again.

If corporate tax is eliminated they will still be competing with each other. The Walmart's of the world will cut the retail price by the eliminated embedded tax to end up with the same retail price or their competition will do it first and gain market share.

It appears that Boortz and Lindner made a mistake in their assumptions inasmuch as their assumptions are not the same ones used by the professor who wrote the study upon which they base their advocacy. Here's a link that describes the problem

...and the Fair Tax web site seems to agree in a statement that net pay will not change under the fair tax. That's a good deal for folks who work for themselves and pay taxes quarterly, but it remains to be seen what will happen to the guy who is salaried or hourly.

The whole ball of wax that many are missing is that the tax system as a whole is a wasted shell game.

Now matter what or in how many ways you tax or fee things it is to generate x amount of dollars out of your compensation for what you do to send to someone who then spends the money in some way that maybe they really shouldn't be doing.

For each and every program in the budget be it federal state or local, there is an overhead cost of regulations, paperwork and handling the funds for allocation.

The less government , the less overhead and feather bedding and fewer trees and electrons killed.

Even with the fair tax their will still be thousands of other almost unknown taxes and fees still out there that most don't even know about.

For example you will still have a federal tax on gasoline and cigarettes, they won't go away.

I could list literally hundreds of other specific examples that are outside the realm of the proposed fix.

This only address moving the income portion of the tax system and a couple of other things.

For example you will still have to pay a "fee" to get a passport. Call it a fee or a tax and it is still money to the government to do it's job. The only difference is what it's current tax status is.

The flat tax and the fair tax are addressing the wrong problem. The problem with our income tax system is not the taxes. Taxes are easy: just read them off of the chart, or perform a simple multiplication. The difficulty is in determining taxable income. The entirety of the tax code, and the libraries of litigation & interpretations are all attempts to define taxable income; the exceptions, deductions, worksheets, forms, etc. are all processes effected to try to equalize different forms of taxable income. I am not interested in "fair tax" or "flat tax"; I am interested only in simplified tax. The complexities and the separate treatments that different classes of income require are what drive the difficulties and frustrations of the current system. Nothing that I have read about the flat tax or the fair tax addressed any suggestion of how to protect against special-interest and social-welfare meddling in tax code. Until such protections are incorporated into the tax code and guaranteed against further meddling, sooner or later we will be right back where we are now - a complicated, uneven, messy, incomprehensible, costly tax code for a new wave of reformers to address. In the previous comments I already find meddling, to wit - exempt the first $50k of income.

Tax reform today is NOT addressing the real problem. Both reform measures still need to define "taxable income." Tell me what has been solved by either of these proposals?

As with other (previous) commentors, I am not an economist or tax specialist, either. But my taxes are a small book and I have been doing them myself for 30+ years, including long before software assistance was even dreamt of.

"he FairTax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, Fairtax supporters say the rate is 23% rather than 30%."

Blatant False:::

I retort how much IN-BEDDED TAX is in that original 1.00 price? Hmm Business tax, Corporate tax, warehouse tax, income tax both on every bit over the price of production from the manufacturer, wholesaler, retail store, and of course the poor sap buying the products taxed on every dime he spends to buy it.

When you pull all of that tax out we will be down around 70cents which will then get the Fair tax applied and added back on. People forget or purposely ignore that the FairTax is not a addition to the current layers of tax they are a substitute to them.

"he FairTax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, Fairtax supporters say the rate is 23% rather than 30%."

Blatant False:::

I retort how much IN-BEDDED TAX is in that original 1.00 price? Hmm Business tax, Corporate tax, warehouse tax, income tax both on every bit over the price of production from the manufacturer, wholesaler, retail store, and of course the poor sap buying the products taxed on every dime he spends to buy it.

When you pull all of that tax out we will be down around 70cents which will then get the Fair tax applied and added back on. People forget or purposely ignore that the FairTax is not a addition to the current layers of tax they are a substitute to them.

So.... if the cost of a tank drops 22% and the FairTax adds 23% back to the cost, the government buys the tank at virtually the same price they are paying now plus 1%, then gets the 23% of the cost of the tank back in tax procedes, didn't the cost of the tank to the government DROP 22%???? Amazing that an Economist would use this as an arguement against a system that lowers the cost of EVERYTHING our government purchases by 22%. The Federal Government makes out far better than we lowly consumers once again.

In case anyone hasn't noticed the Tax Freedom day is now somewhere in June or July for when you have worked enough days to pay just your federal tax bill and a couple of other income related weighted state income taxes.

That isn't the whole story.

Add in sales tax on items you buy.

The fee for such things as

Drivers License
You tag on your car
City Water bill
City gas bill
Trash disposal fees and escrow for the next dump to be built.

Yup add all those "other" things up and you will find for the average person you are well above 60% as to what you pay out to others to manage your life.

Look at your paycheck and add up the tax withholdings and then look at all the fees you pay to government you already paid for that they tack on top of that.

Boil it down to after tax income and then subtract all those other fees some form of government entity is still getting into your wallet for.

A ten dollar tax on each cigar. Fine bring it on! I will then keep the receipts and just deduct if from my taxes as an itemized deduction.

We already have embedded pretaxed items in every retail item sold and then have state sales tax thrown on top of that. Well 23% of that is tax on a tax.

By this, I don't mean high tariffs on specific goods meant to protect industries with lobbying influence. I mean a broad-based flat tariff optimized for revenue and offset of reduction or elimination of income taxes.

First of all, this functions as a de-factor broad-based consumption tax because of all of the consumer goods (stuff from China) and commodities (oil) we import. Secondly, this solves the problem of China not bearing the expense of environmental and social welfare regulation and taxes which are uniquely borne by domestic goods.

Secondly, a tariff is the one kind of broad-based revenue tax the Founders had in mind; the income tax required a Constitutional amendment.

If you really want to see the underground economy take off, go ahead and implement a Value Added Tax (VAT). You will quickly find that most goods and services will have two prices - the official price (pay by cheque or credit card) and the cash price (a fair bit cheaper). I lived through the introduction of Canada's VAT called the GST and I can assure you - the non-compliance will be unbelievable.

Fair Tax. Just another word for ripping off the working people. The rich will invest overseas and not 'spend' all of the money they make while the working people will pay out (in tax) 30% on every dime they earn since it takes all of it to live. You had better grab your a** when the rich start talking about anything fair, they are about to get a piece of you.

A famous Civil War General "Stonewall" Jackson by name, once held a staff meeting before a battle, after hours of "what ifs, tired, confused his staff agreed "in principal" on a plan. Here's "Stonewall's" story.
Late one day in May of 1862 Stonewall Jackson was about to order a night attack on the Federals in Winchester. He summoned the five regimental commanders of the Stonewall Brigade for a council of war. He then issued orders incorporating their advice. When the desired assault failed to work out, Jackson was furious. "That is the last council of war I will ever hold." He kept his word!

Or, one of many takes on a very old axiom; “A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.” Wag the Dog (1997) – Conrad Brean (Robert De Nero).

What we've all been discussing is a "perfect plan", we know the current IRS system is anything but equitable, regardless of circumstances. Move forward!

A famous Civil War General "Stonewall" Jackson by name, once held a staff meeting before a battle, after hours of "what ifs, tired, confused his staff agreed "in principal" on a plan. Here's "Stonewall's" story.
Late one day in May of 1862 Stonewall Jackson was about to order a night attack on the Federals in Winchester. He summoned the five regimental commanders of the Stonewall Brigade for a council of war. He then issued orders incorporating their advice. When the desired assault failed to work out, Jackson was furious. "That is the last council of war I will ever hold." He kept his word!

Or, one of many takes on a very old axiom; “A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.” Wag the Dog (1997) – Conrad Brean (Robert De Nero).

What we've all been discussing is a "perfect plan", we know the current IRS system is anything but equitable, regardless of circumstances. Move forward!

A famous Civil War General "Stonewall" Jackson by name, once held a staff meeting before a battle, after hours of "what ifs, tired, confused his staff agreed "in principal" on a plan. Here's "Stonewall's" story.
Late one day in May of 1862 Stonewall Jackson was about to order a night attack on the Federals in Winchester. He summoned the five regimental commanders of the Stonewall Brigade for a council of war. He then issued orders incorporating their advice. When the desired assault failed to work out, Jackson was furious. "That is the last council of war I will ever hold." He kept his word!

Or, one of many takes on a very old axiom; “A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.” Wag the Dog (1997) – Conrad Brean (Robert De Nero).

What we've all been discussing is a "perfect plan", we know the current IRS system is anything but equitable, regardless of circumstances. Move forward!

A famous Civil War General "Stonewall" Jackson by name, once held a staff meeting before a battle, after hours of "what ifs, tired, confused his staff agreed "in principal" on a plan. Here's "Stonewall's" story.
Late one day in May of 1862 Stonewall Jackson was about to order a night attack on the Federals in Winchester. He summoned the five regimental commanders of the Stonewall Brigade for a council of war. He then issued orders incorporating their advice. When the desired assault failed to work out, Jackson was furious. "That is the last council of war I will ever hold." He kept his word!

Or, one of many takes on a very old axiom; “A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.” Wag the Dog (1997) – Conrad Brean (Robert De Nero).

What we've all been discussing is a "perfect plan", we know the current IRS system is anything but equitable, regardless of circumstances. Move forward!

A famous Civil War General "Stonewall" Jackson by name, once held a staff meeting before a battle, after hours of "what ifs, tired, confused his staff agreed "in principal" on a plan. Here's "Stonewall's" story.
Late one day in May of 1862 Stonewall Jackson was about to order a night attack on the Federals in Winchester. He summoned the five regimental commanders of the Stonewall Brigade for a council of war. He then issued orders incorporating their advice. When the desired assault failed to work out, Jackson was furious. "That is the last council of war I will ever hold." He kept his word!

Or, one of many takes on a very old axiom; “A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.” Wag the Dog (1997) – Conrad Brean (Robert De Nero).

What we've all been discussing is a "perfect plan", we know the current IRS system is anything but equitable, regardless of circumstances. Move forward!

So.... if the cost of a tank drops 22% and the FairTax adds 23% back to the cost, the government buys the tank at virtually the same price they are paying now plus 1%, then gets the 23% of the cost of the tank back in tax procedes, didn't the cost of the tank to the government DROP 22%???? Amazing that an Economist would use this as an arguement against a system that lowers the cost of EVERYTHING our government purchases by 22%. The Federal Government makes out far better than we lowly consumers once again.

Ed, in your discussion of the vehicle tax, here in IL the sales taxes are paid when you register the vehicles - whether bought from a dealer or private (with the exception of transfers between family members) so I don't see how that would change or affect the sale of a vehicle - especially considering the fact that the overall cost of the vehicle would drop because employers would no longer have to pay FICA, Medicare, unemployment (not sure on that one) or corporate taxes.

Really, you should look into how the fair tax works before you spread these false facts online. I think if you did you would find it very attractive and economically friendly.
DKK

Feel good and I hope it could or could not be true is not a way to live.

Now think about it.

If corporate taxes were for the most part were eliminated, just where do you think the next branch of an international company would be located?

Not all, because the income tax part is only a portion of the corporate tax burden.

But if we did that we could not support the rush we would have to incorporate a branch office or factory here.

We already have low unemployment due mainly the Bush tax cuts and there is not a way we could support other nations rushing here to take advantage of the low tax impact environment.

There are simply not enough workers available.

I am continuously less than amazed how some shoot from the hip because they want to express their support for the latest cause of the day rather than doing the tuff job of actually thinking about an issue.

I have tried twice to post this but it seems requests for corrections don't make it through the filter.

Captain, you are completely uninformed on how the Fair Tax works to the point of repeating the 23 vs 30% propaganda started by people who have no knowledge of how the tax works.

Here is how Bortz replied to the NRO hit piece a week ago:
OK ... let's work on the assumption that these editors are actually intelligent. You don't get to be an editor at NRO by filling out an end panel on a box of Grape Nuts. So ... if these guys have any brains at all, how can they so badly misrepresent the FairTax? There are crane operators out there who know that if you buy $100 worth of clothes the 23% FairTax comes out of the $100. Nothing is added to the price. The clothes don't cost you $130 in total ... they cost you $100. The 23% FairTax merely replaces the imbedded tax that would be there if you bought those clothes today!

Look ... if you're going to criticize the FairTax, can you at least read the book before you make fools out of yourselves?

Captain, please get the facts on this then issue a correction so these inaccuracies stop propagating on the web.
DKK

I have tried twice to post this but it seems requests for corrections don't make it through the filter.

Captain, you are completely uninformed on how the Fair Tax works to the point of repeating the 23 vs 30% propaganda started by people who have no knowledge of how the tax works.

Here is how Bortz replied to the NRO hit piece a week ago:

"OK ... let's work on the assumption that these editors are actually intelligent. You don't get to be an editor at NRO by filling out an end panel on a box of Grape Nuts. So ... if these guys have any brains at all, how can they so badly misrepresent the FairTax? There are crane operators out there who know that if you buy $100 worth of clothes the 23% FairTax comes out of the $100. Nothing is added to the price. The clothes don't cost you $130 in total ... they cost you $100. The 23% FairTax merely replaces the imbedded tax that would be there if you bought those clothes today!

Look ... if you're going to criticize the FairTax, can you at least read the book before you make fools out of yourselves?"

Captain, please get the facts on this then issue a correction so these inaccuracies stop propagating on the web.
DKK

Ed, you also fail to mention the prebate when you state that most people wouldn't be willing to trade their tax rate for what you claim is a 30% rate... Oh forget it - you have posted nothing factual - at least about the Fairtax in this entire post.

Most people would love paying no FICA (Social Security taxes), Medicare taxes, income taxes, capital gains taxes, interest income taxes, while at the same time receiving a monthly check to offset any taxes you pay on the items you have to purchase to live. At least they would if the facts were reported rather then the propaganda.

Again, please learn how the Fairtax works because whatever you are describing doesn't even resemble the Fairtax.
DKK

Walter Williams has pointed out the same thing I've tried to point out about the so-called "Fair Tax" proposal - unless you can repeal the 16th Amendment, you can bet that within a few years, you'd end up with both an income tax and the "fair tax." All you'd need would be some excuse for the government to declare an emergency so they could "temporarily" restore the income tax. Then, it'd stick around like that long distance phone tax used to finance the Spanish-American War.

The chances of repealing the 16th amendment are pretty close to zero. Given that reality, I'd opt for a flat tax over a consumption tax. Either would be better than the monstrosity we have today, but without repealing the income tax amendment, you're setting yourself up for a big fall.

Sometime in the early-mid 80's, a political writer/economist/? (don't even ask for a link, if you need to know, do your own searches - I'm working from memory the best I can) opined that what was needed to restore the economic vitality of the U.S. was a complete revision of the way governments at all levels derive their income.

His proposal was that the Federal system should be funded by consumption taxes which would force everyone to contribute (this during the great Cocaine Importation era - can you say "Miami Vice"?) to the Federal kitty; that States' should derive their funds from an Income Tax (the scope a breadth of income would be fought out in 50 different legislatures); and that all lower government entities would be supported by the Property Tax.

Three types/levels of government; three types of taxes - no intermingling.

A few points regarding the conversion to a sales/cosumption tax. 1)there would still need to be some federal agency to administer the collection of the tax. 2) There would still remain substantial unreported income - only just ashift to a blackmarket for goods instead of services. 3) there would be substanial issues regarding the conversion to a sales tax - for example how would individuals who already own homes pay for their consumption. 4) the tax would be far more regressive than is assumed in most projections. for example young consumers typically have higher consumption in relation to income due to normal propensity to spend, but also because, they are in the initual years of raising families with the majority of funds used for necessary living expenses. 5) The fica/medicare tax would still be needed based on most projections at a 23% sales tax rate

Making a transition from income tax to sales tax would benifit those in debt and effectively penalize those with savings. Those in debt would have benifits that were never taxed (goods bought before the sales tax payed for by income after the incometax ends), while those with savings would be taxed twice (once on income before the switch, once on spending after it).
Any radical change in the tax system will have similar imbalances, one way or the other.

Francly, I would like to see the entitlements (which are the bulk of federal spending) pushed off to the states with the taxes to suport them. The constitution was sevierly broken by those programs.

Man I had a post I was hitting on with all cylinders and it got lost in the middle of composing the post.

Not trying to post it but it just vanished in the middle of a thought.

Somehow the web code here is having issues to say the least.

I have even opened another tab after attempting to post here and come back 5 minutes later to check on the status and it was still out in the lost land of comment hell.

I refreshed the thread and the comment was still in limbo but others show up in maybe three seconds, but strangely the comment is still hanging in there in the comment box just waiting for the impulse to hit post and double it up.

Is there something WRONG with AMERICANS wanting to get rid of the IRS?

Can anyone IMAGINE for one moment our FOUNDING FATHERS putting up with an IRS, much less INSTITUTING ONE?
And where is the CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION for it?

We can smear Scientologists for a lot of things - but for wanting to get rid of the IRS??????
STAND IN LINE behind 95% of AMERICANS, for THAT one! Just like the UN!

What better way to disenfranchise Toady Chappaquiddick Waitress Sandwich than to slash the IRS out of the American government, and to slice the size of American taxes - and to slap the government hand that is poking in places it has never been authorized to go.

So I go to the Anywhereville Sears for an Acme widget. Before the Fair Tax it retailed for $100. Under the Fair Tax, despite there being a brand new 23% federal sales tax, that widget will still retail for well below $100. That's because

1. Acme knows what Sears will pay wholesale for a widget, but goes ahead and discounts that sales price anyhow so it only makes the pre-Fair Tax profit. Of course no governmental authority can compel Acme to do that, it's just going to.

2. Sears goes to the trouble of calculating the adjusted post-Fair Tax costs of widgets from all its various manufacturers--because the savings of abolished taxation will be a unique figure for each company-- and although it knows the consumer would pay $100 for widgets, Sears discounts each widget by the appropriate amount to ensure it only earns the same pre-Fair Tax profit. Of course no governmental authority can compel Sears to do that, it is just going to.

3. Anywhereville City Council obligingly agrees to freeze its tax rates, presuming that Sears is NOT going to keep selling widgets at $100 and will, therefore, NOT have oodles of cash with which to pay Anywhereville higher sales and property taxes. Of course no federal authority can compel Anywhereville City Council to do that, it's just going to.

4. The municipality where Acme has its factory will likewise not hike taxes on the presumption Acme isn't reaping in profits as if it were Exxon.

It's so amusing to listen to all the special pleading from the Fair Tax crowd. "No, you're wrong. You just don't understand the Fair Tax."

Replace "Fair Tax" with "Marxist Theory" or "Catholicism", and you begin to understand how much of the Fair Tax is based on faith rather than reason.

Isn't it lovely to believe that you can wave a magic wand and make the IRS go away? (It does make you wonder who's going to enfoce the new tax policy. Maybe we'll all do it voluntairly because it's such a swell system, kinda like anarchy.) It is such a lovely, shiny religion.

Right now, I pay Income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and I'm sure there's more that I can't name. The total tax rate on my "estate" is currently a lot higher than 23 or even 30%.

More importantly, the retail price of an item includes so many tax charges it's ridiculus. In some jurisdictions, the retail price of gasoline is about half "tax". This would be removed if a FairTax or a flat tax system is adopted.

I would gladly trade my current tax load for a static, single rate of 30%.

The consumption tax (Sales tax) in addition to the disruption in the economy would some of the following results, most of which have only lightly been considered:
1)It would not eliminate IRS – Will still need agency to collect and enforce tax, and process rebates to the lower wage earners 2) black market would still exist, only a shift from unreported income to unreported sales, 3) A sales tax would be substantially more regressive than is assumed in most projections, lower wages earnings, ie young families just starting out, spend a much higher percentage of income on consumer goods, 4) the transitional rules would create havoc and tremendous inequities, for example how to treat someone who bought a $200k house one year before enactment vs purchase after enactment with a $40k sales tax tacked on. Transitional rules get further complicated by elderly who are paying sales tax on purchases with savings whereby the income tax already been taxed during their working years 5) the complexity of the tax law would not go away, exceptions, modifications, rebates, etc would work their way back into the system within a few years. 6) Most estimates of the sales tax would be that FICA would still be needed to fund social security.

I find it hard to believe that the fine government spoils system that gave us the current tax scheme would be benevolent enough to "do away with” ANY tax that exists today. Any compromises the “fair tax” would inevitably undergo before becoming law would probably result in the “fair tax” being tacked on to a slight modification of the nightmare we currently suffer under…

I am a business owner. If the FairTax were to be implemented, my prices would remain the same and perhaps eventually decrease. There would be no additional 23% tacked on. Any business which attempted to raise prices by 23% would lose educated customers who would not appreciate that business treating them as idiots.

>Walter Williams has pointed out the same thing I've tried to point out about the so-called "Fair Tax" proposal - unless you can repeal the 16th Amendment, you can bet that within a few years, you'd end up with both an income tax and the "fair tax."

The Fair Tax, as the bill is written, would go into effect on January 1 the year following the repeal of the 16th amendment.

Disclaimer: I don't trust the "Fair Tax", but I almost want it just because I know too much about the current tax system (I just took a year-long course in federal taxes). The reason I'm against it is because I don't think the proponents have accurately estimated the degree to which our economy is ruled by our tax system; change the tax system rapidly and our economy will become unpredictable.

At the same time, I have to respond to this:

"Of course no governmental authority can compel Sears to do that, it is just going to."

Two points here.

First, yes; Sears is going to respond to consumer demand. This is shown clearly though all history: if a company doesn't have direct legislative support, it remains vulnerable to competition and thus open to consumer demand.

Second, no: there's no authority that can compel "governmental authority" to do the right thing. There's not even any way of reliably telling what IS the right thing to do. It might restrict Sears but leave Macy's unrestricted -- or perhaps restrict both of those and leave car mechanics unrestricted. Either way, good lobbying will get you what you want -- and that means money will get spent on lobbying instead of on producing useful goods.

I am a business owner. If the FairTax were to be implemented, my prices would remain the same and perhaps eventually decrease. There would be no additional 23% tacked on. Any business which attempted to raise prices by 23% would lose educated customers who would not appreciate that business treating them as idiots.

>Walter Williams has pointed out the same thing I've tried to point out about the so-called "Fair Tax" proposal - unless you can repeal the 16th Amendment, you can bet that within a few years, you'd end up with both an income tax and the "fair tax."

The Fair Tax, as the bill is written, would go into effect on January 1 the year following the repeal of the 16th amendment.

After 16+ years of stunningly bad management in the White House, what assurances can you give that with your lack of executive experience you can manage the government "enterprise" any better than what we've been suffering through? Do you have what it takes to fire someone, even and old friend, when he or she isn't getting the job done?

The 23% figure is correct when comparing it to existing income taxes since they are taken from adjusted gross earnings. It is incorrect when comparing to existing sales tax rates. It is safe to say that replacing existing sales and income taxes with a total of 23 or 30% would be a good thing. The question is will it happen or will the flat tax just become another tax.

Before we go shifting the source of the tax revenues around, we need a big-time house cleaning in the House of Representatives, and shut down those hundreds of wasteful entitlement programs (like the Department of Education).
Then, try on a flat tax for 2-4 years, no exemptions, no credits.
Bust up all of the unions,
Enact tort and malpractice reform,
Then switch to the Fair Tax.

To make the point that the FairTax would be awful because the government would also have to pay the tax is moot.
The government would be paying itself.
Whatever the tax rate required to replace the income tax does not matter. The "Code" is a travesty.

The government does not want the FairTax because of its transparency. When voters realize how much they are paying in taxes, there will be repercussions.

Ladies & gentlemen, let us not forget how our government works. A bill has been presented to the House of Representatives for consideration and also to the Senate. The first group to express their opinion will be the tax sub-committee of Ways & Means. Next the entire committee and then the entire House. The same applied to the Senate.

When those 535 members have had their way does anyone really think you will be able to recognize the original bill?

Finally the conference committee and the President's signature which, depending on election results, is not guaranteed.

Look folks, all this "stuff" means nothing until congress acts. Only then will we see what we have to deal with.

Many commenters believe that the government will eventually strip Roth IRAs of their tax advantages, possibly by doing to them what they did to Social Security. The Fair Tax does exactly that: it breaks the promise of Roth IRAs being tax free by taking investment gains that were to be free of an income tax and making them subject to a consumption tax.

No promise is being broken on Roth IRAs with the FairTax. Just as it is now, if you are of qualified age you can remove funds from your Roth IRA without penalty and without getting hit with income tax on the withdrawn amount. Yes you will pay the FairTax when you purchase something, but we are already paying a lot of tax embedded in those price of goods. So for Roth IRA holders it's really not much difference, but for traditional IRA holders or anyone who does not have the benefit of tax-free investment, they would have a lot more capability to fund their retirements. We desperately need this encouragement for people to invest for their own future as we cannot depend on social security as a retirement plan.

To address the original posting, the 16th Amendment stuff about how we would have to repeal it in order to prevent having both a sales tax and an income tax is rather silly when you think about it:

Firstly, the 16th Amendment does not require income taxation, it only expressly allows it (and some constitutional scholars would argue income could be levied for tax even without it).

Secondly, the chicken-little scenario of double-taxation is not realistic, because our government currently has the capability to double-tax us now, either through a sales tax or through increased income taxes - yet they have not. Why? Because tax increases are one of the most unpopular things to do for a politician, and if they can fund their programs with the FairTax, why bring back the specter of an income tax?

Thirdly, the FairTax legislation completely dismantles the IRS as we know it, so in order to once again enact an income tax they would have to reform it by scratch which would be difficult, expensive, and hugely unpopular. I think we should eventually repeal the 16th Amendment, and a few years of prosperity under the FairTax would be ample evidence to gain enough public support to do so. However, that does not mean the 16th Amendment needs to be repealed to enact the FairTax to begin with - it really is just another ploy by FairTax opponents as they know repealing an amendment is more politically difficult than passing a bill.

This Tax Plan only changes the way we pay our taxes. It is a Combination 8% National Sales Tax and a Flexible Flat Tax from 2% to 16%, with only one deduction, Charity.

This plan can be implemented in 8 to 10 months, because it only changes the way and where we pay our Income Tax.
The Poor, Veterans, Seniors can qualify for a Tax reduction identification card.

We start the plan with a 2% Nationl sales tax and we reduce the payroll deduction the same percentage. Two or 3 months later we go to a 5% National Sales tax and again reduce the payroll deduction. The final increase is to 8% and that cannot be increased with a vote of the people.
High ticket items would be taxed at about half of the 8%. Cars, RV;s, Boats, Houses, T.V. etc.

The Flexible Flat Tax would pickup any shortage to make sure that America remains financially strong.

The IRS continues to work, auditing our government expendatures and contracts. This is what Congress apparently doesn't want to happen.
I have given this tax plan to my representatives since 1993. They have ignored the issue completely.

The Flexibility of this plan assures the Citizens that their Country will be financially strong and Honest in their money dealings.
It also puts money in the pockets of all taxpayers, not just the rich.

PLEASE COMMUNICATE THIS WEBSITE TO YOUR FREINDS
AND LETS MAKE CONGRESS WORK FOR THE PEOPLE.

PROTECT OUR GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE. CONGRESS
IS TRYING TO TAKE IT AWAY.

The Fair Tax is a very viable alternative to our current method of collecting 'goverment revenue'.

Captain, why not start up a dialogue with Mr. Boortz and study this further.

I for one would be willing to risk some of those negative outcomes for a completely different system than what's currently in place.

Don't forget that under the Fair Tax plan, the government cuts a check to every American Citizen to offset cost of living (or some mechanism - I still need to read the book ;) )

Also, what will really doom this wonderful idea to nothing more than an idea is that this change takes the power of taxation (punishing/rewarding constituents & special interests) out of the politician's hands. It's much harder under the Fair Tax for a politician to try and raise taxes when they state we need to raise it from 23 to 24%. Now when they want to raise taxes (you know, we're going to tax the "rich"), they add all these archaic formulas and tax code, designed to benefit interests that they favor(or punish the reverse), that even I as an engineering school graduate, have trouble deciphering.

All of Bartlett's assumptions have been addressed by the 2006 study by Beacon Hill Institute and Dr. Kotlikoff. You can access it on Dr. Kotlikoff's website, in the November 2006 tax notes or on the FairTax website (http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Tax%20Notes%20article%20on%20FT%20rate.pdf).

All math is provided. They calculate the revenue neutral rate including keeping real government purchasing power neutral. Contrary to Bartlett's statement, the prebate is also included. That is just one of at least nine misstatements in the Bartlett article.

The Fair Tax Act (HR 25, S 1025) has far more advantage to offer Americans than defenders of the status quo (including Bruce Bartlett) are willing to concede, so they smear or misstate the facts, either from ignorance or as deliberate misrepresentation. I have spoken to public audiences in favor of the Fair Tax during the past five-plus years, and I am still gaining new insights into the tremendous benefits it offers in comparison to the existing federal tax system.

I call the Fair Tax the One Trillion Dollar Sure Thing, because I am convinced its enactment would relieve current American taxpayers of at least $1 trillion annually in burdens imposed by today's federal tax laws. Compliance costs are estimated at $300 billion yearly, all of which will be eliminated, because 90% of tax returns will not have to be filed, and those who file Fair Tax returns will be reimbursed a small increment of taxes reported to cover their compliance costs.

In addition, the Tax Gap of $345 billion yearly will be eliminated, because those who now file written returns owing that much in taxes but do not pay because they have spent their money elsewhere will have to pay the Fair Tax at the cash register like everyone else. Moreover, the so-called underground "cash" economy is estimated at two to three times larger than the Tax Gap, and those who evade current taxes by that means will likewise have to pay their share (at least $345 billion per year) when they buy new goods or services for final consumption.

Then we can save at least $10 billion yearly by downsizing the IRS to a Treasury Department office to collect the Fair Tax revenues and dispense the "prebate" monthly. This totals $1 trillion annually that today's tax system wastes by its profligate, improvident design, which is as much about social engineering and political favors as it is about revenue collection.

The Fair Tax "prebate" goes to every household, without regard to income level, reducing the effective tax rate of the Fair Tax in greater proportion for low income earners than for high spenders. The result is that the Fair Tax produces higher progressivity (even more favorable treatment for low income earners) than the existing tax system it would replace. Americans would pay no federal taxes until their household spending for new goods and services exceeds the poverty level. Today's IRC extracts payroll taxes from the paycheck before there is bread on the table (or a table!).

Sales of new homes would be subject to the Fair Tax, because the labor and materials used to construct them would have the federal taxes presently embedded in them stripped out. Those embedded taxes are estimated by economic analysis to be an average of 22% of the cost of materials and 24% of the cost of labor. The Fair Tax on new homes could be financed as other costs of the home are.

What Bartlett fails to mention is that the Fair Tax would enable homeowners to pay both mortgage interest and principal with before-tax dollars, while the current income tax gives that advantage only to payment of mortgage interest. More importantly, under the Fair Tax no taxes are payable at all upon resale of existing homes; no ordinary income tax and no capital gains tax on re-sale of your existing home. And no taxes on estates or gifts under the Fair Tax Act.

All investments would be completely untaxed under the Fair Tax, so every investment would be more advantaged than even residential housing is under today's tax system. Interest rates would decline about 25% towards today's tax exempt rates, because interest income would not be taxed. Neither would dividends be taxed. All investments would appreciate in present value because their profits would not be taxed.

Very reputable economists have opined that the Fair Tax Act would be very beneficial to capital investment and economic growth in the U. S. Dr. Arthur B. Laffer's econometrics firm is one that has issued such a written analysis. The Fair Tax Act is better supported by economic analysis than any aspect of the existing internal revenue code.

Those granted special privileges by today's federal tax code oppose change that might endanger their advantages. But even those who might be viewed as wedded to the IRC see the greater possibilities presented to them by the Fair Tax. Tax preparers such as H & R Block, for example, see much greater financial advantage in an economy growing two to three times faster than in the limited prospects that flow from filling out tax forms.

Farmers and small businesses see the tremendous benefits for their productivity, and savings from the current tax system's wastefulness, in the Fair Tax. The National Federation of Farm Bureaus is a strong supporter of the Fair Tax. By stripping 22% to 24% embedded taxes out of the costs of American-made products and services, U. S. competitiveness in foreign trade and in the U. S. market will be significantly improved.

Others ought to take a closer look to see what has attracted support for the Fair Tax before jumping to unwarranted conclusions such as those stated by Bartlett. The Fair Tax is in writing as an actual legislative bill, and can be read and evaluated on its merits. There are good reasons why the Fair Tax has growing support as the best approach to fundamental tax reform. It it the best piece of legislation I have ever seen. We need it.

If the 16th Amendment were not repealed, and the FairTax was implemented, then, don't you think that we, as good patriots of this great nation, could hoist up in strong oak trees some of the politicians responsible for such thievery with a taunt sisel rope, adequately cinched about their necks? I do.

It would be foolhearty of the politician not to recognize the will of a majority of the populace, considering the gallows is currently being erected just in case they forget.

Enact the FairTax now, or, have more tax in the future. The choice is up to us.

One of the primary principles of the FairTax is the repeal of the 16th Amendment, as it would no longer be necessary for the collection of revenue for the government. Nor, would the taxpayers of this country put up with double taxation. Heck, we can't even stand for the overbearing taxation that we have now.

I believe that Neal Boortz stated most correctly when he said that in order to criticize the FairTax, it's detractors must first lie about it. They cannot argue their case on facts.

Could all of those economic expert packed think tanks (think Harvard, MIT, etc.) be completely wrong about the FairTax? Not hardly.

It was independent, non-biased research that came up with the FairTax model for the best way to solve the current federal income tax problem. My money is riding with the more educated crowd on this one.

FairTax is the best, most capitalistic method of fairly collecting the revenue that is currently required to run the government. FairTax Now.

One of the primary principles of the FairTax is the repeal of the 16th Amendment, as it would no longer be necessary for the collection of revenue for the government. Nor, would the taxpayers of this country put up with double taxation. Heck, we can't even stand for the overbearing taxation that we have now.

I believe that Neal Boortz stated most correctly when he said that in order to criticize the FairTax, it's detractors must first lie about it. They cannot argue their case on facts.

Could all of those economic expert packed think tanks (think Harvard, MIT, etc.) be completely wrong about the FairTax? Not hardly.

It was independent, non-biased research that came up with the FairTax model for the best way to solve the current federal income tax problem. My money is riding with the more educated crowd on this one.

FairTax is the best, most capitalistic method of fairly collecting the revenue that is currently required to run the government. FairTax Now.

One of the primary principles of the FairTax is the repeal of the 16th Amendment, as it would no longer be necessary for the collection of revenue for the government. Nor, would the taxpayers of this country put up with double taxation. Heck, we can't even stand for the overbearing taxation that we have now.

I believe that Neal Boortz stated most correctly when he said that in order to criticize the FairTax, it's detractors must first lie about it. They cannot argue their case on facts.

Could all of those economic expert packed think tanks (think Harvard, MIT, etc.) be completely wrong about the FairTax? Not hardly.

It was independent, non-biased research that came up with the FairTax model for the best way to solve the current federal income tax problem. My money is riding with the more educated crowd on this one.

FairTax is the best, most capitalistic method of fairly collecting the revenue that is currently required to run the government. FairTax Now.

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember me?YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

About

Captain Ed is a father and grandfather living in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, a native Californian who moved to the North Star State because of the weather. He lives with his wife Marcia, also known as the First Mate, their two dogs, and frequently watch their granddaughter Kayla, whom Captain Ed calls The Little Admiral.

My Other Blog

The Crows Nest

Would Early Primaries Allow More Donations?

Jim Geraghty at The Campaign Spot believes that candidates will benefit if primaries and caucuses get pushed into 2007. A loophole in campaign finance regulation appears to allow an extra $2,300 per donor for candidates if those elections are held this year. Be sure to check out Jim's analysis, and the surprising candidate that may benefit the most.

When Tom Met Jeralyn

One of the interesting aspects of politics is finding out that opponents are people, too. Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft met Rep. Tom Tancredo backstage at NBC's studios, and found him more likable than she had anticipated. Perhaps it was their mutual interest in Dog, The Bounty Hunter ...

Joe Lieberman A Right-Wing Nut?

That's what CAIR says, according to Joe Kaufman. He has a link to a CAIR official's blog post that calls Lieberman, along with John Bolton, former CIA director James Woolsey, and the Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes as "extremists". Affad Shaikh also calls Dick Cheney a "fat bastard of a liar," apparently not meant as a pop-culture reference to the Austin Powers movies. (via Let Freedom Ring)

Broadband Homelessness

The Japanese have made homelessness more efficient, and more Net-friendly, too. Their Internet cafés have become homeless shelters for the struggling manual-labor sector. The problem has grown into such a problem that government intervention will shortly become a political priority.

Found My Law Firm

Power Line linkstwice to this story regarding an attorney at Faegre & Benson who refused to become a victim and helped capture a very dangerous man. Keith Radtke is a partner in the firm as is Power Line's John Hinderaker. Radtke is listed in satisfactory condition after getting shot in the back, but that didn't keep him from locking up his attacker in a wrestling grip until police could arrive. I don't know about you, but that's the kind of man I'd want as my counsel ....

Don't Click That YouTube E-mail

The latest in spam seems to be redirections from YouTube links in e-mail to IP addresses without domain names. They attempt to entice people by making it seem that they have been inadvertently YouTubed. I'm sure most people can see through this scam, but just in case, you've been warned ....

Rick Moran Escapes The Floods

Rick Moran has kept us up to date on his travails along the Algonquin River. Yesterday, the police showed up to get him evacuated before the river flooded his home -- but today, Rick finds that a minor miracle has taken place, and that his house survives ... at least for now. Keep Rick in your prayers, and keep checking in at Right Wing Nut House for updates.

Rule 1: Drag The Corpse On Over First

If I've learned anything in four years of blogging, don't try to be out in front of the death rumors, especially with the villains of the world. Saddam died a hundred deaths before we caught him alive in his spider hole, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi almost as many before his demise last year. Osama may or may not be alive, but everyone's avoided speculating on his fate for a while now. Maybe Val at Babalu Blog will get luckier with his "Castro Is Dead" story. We all hope so. I'll wait for the announcement ....

Hobbs Choice

Volunteer Voters is holding its annual "Best of Nashville" on-line polls, and one of the categories is for the best political writer. Our friend Bill Hobbs, now posting at Newsbusters, and he'd like his on-line fans to cast their votes. Drop by and put one in for Bill if you get a chance!

Murtha Getting Backlogged On Apologies

Gary Gross of Let Freedom Ring sees another case collapsing on the Haditha charges. He's called for Murtha to apologize earlier, and adds another reason to the tally.

No Such Thing As 'Moderate' Islam?

Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan told a television interviewer that he finds the label "moderate Islam" offensive. Shrink Wrapped has a lot more on this, but at least in the same interview Erdogan acknowledged that "radical Islam" exists, and that it's been a catastrophe. Be sure to read the whole post.

MS-NBC Gets Punk'd

Power Line has a great post on a lack of journalistic effort on the part of MS-NBC. In covering the Michael Vick story, they reported on what they thought was Al Sharpton's website proclaiming Vick's innocence. I guess Alex Johnson and two other MS-NBC reporters couldn't bother to read the title bar of the site, which proudly proclaims it as a "parody site".

New Instapundit Podcast On Pharmaceuticals

I just caught this e-mail from Glenn Reynolds about his new podcast with Richard Epstein, the author of Overdose: How Excessive Government Regulation Stifles Pharmaceutical Innovation. Haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but the topic is important enough to make sure I carve out time for it tomorrow. Get their first and tell me what I'm missing ....

Fed Trying A 'Stealth Easing'?

The Federal Reserve seems to have conducted a quiet campaign to steady markets that started spinning out of control, according to King Banaian at SCSU Scholars. He thinks that the Fed has conducted a "stealth easing". Be sure to read his explanation and follow his lnks.

A Shameless Bit Of Sel-Promotion

Gateway Pundit and Val at Babalu Blog note a crass PR move by Hugo Chavez. Venezuela has responded to Peru's eathquake disaster with food shipments -- and with Hugo's smiling picture on the cans. He also uses the tuna-can label to undermine President Garcia of Peru, who narrowly defeated Chavez' pal Ollanto Humalla, whom the labels extol for his "solidarity" with Chavez.

Tacky beyond belief.

Archives

Subscription

Search

Blogroll

Captain's Quarters features an authoritative blogroll, listing many websites that feature the top political thinking on the Internet. In order to make the list easier to navigate, it has been divided into a number of sections.